Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipf and Stock


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wipf and Stock

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Violates wp:notable  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I nominate Wipf and Stock for deletion for the following reasons: Please consider for deletion. Thanks, &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Article only uses a primary reference
 * 2) WIPF & Stock Publishers is not accredited with the Better Business Bureau. The following remarks were made by the BBB about Wipf and Stock:
 * BBB does not have sufficient information to determine how long this business has been operating.
 * BBB does not have sufficient background information on this business. BBB made two or more requests for background information from the business. BBB has not received a response from this business and/or has not been able to verify information received from this business.


 * Delete The Eugene BBB doesn't get to decide who deserves a Wikipedia article, but we can ignore that part. Wipf and Stock doesn't appear notable: nothing on Google News or Google other than book announcements that contain no information on the company. I can't find anything in local papers the Register-Guard or Eugene Weekly and it doesn't seem to be a particularly important publisher in terms of its history or what it's published. This is all Publishers Weekly has to say. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article author hadn't been notified of this AfD, but I've rectified this. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks .  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am very surprised this has come up for the deletion, as it is a very well-known and reputable publisher in its field. I will see if I can add some sources to the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are not many incoming links to this article, but it is mentioned more than 100 times on Wikipedia. Doing a search, I've just found a book I want to buy that they have recently published. :) StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google Scholar yields more than 2000 results. StAnselm (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Nomination is utterly unrelated to policy. There is enough news coverage to satisfy WP:N. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Johnfos (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. They seem notable to me. They have published and reprinted a host of Christian pacifist, anarchist and radical texts. Interestingly Eugene (Oregon), because of its links to green anarchism, has been described as the "anarchist capital of the United States." Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nirvana2013. BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- FAilure to register with BBB (whether that is) does not make it NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.